Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu]

Supernova Remnants

In galaxies similar to our Milky Way Galaxy, a star will explode violently every 26 years or so (a). These explosions, called supernovas, produce gas and dust that expand outward thousands of miles per second. With radio telescopes, these remnants in our galaxy should be visible for a million years. However, only about 7,000 years’ worth of supernova debris are seen (b). So, the Milky Way looks young.


Figure 34: The Crab Nebula. In A.D. 1054, Chinese observers (and perhaps Anasazi Indians in New Mexico and Arizona) witnessed and described a supernova. It was visible in daylight for 23 days and briefly was as bright as a full moon. Today, the remnants from that explosion comprise the Crab Nebula.

a. “An application of the present results to the [Milky Way] Galaxy yields one supernova per 26 (± 10 estimated error) years in very good agreement with the evidence from historical supernovae.” G. A. Tammann, “On the Frequency of Supernovae as a Function of the Integral Properties of Intermediate and Late Type Spiral Galaxies,” Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 8, October 1970, p. 458.

• A more recent technique that surveyed thousands of galaxies, including smaller galaxies, concluded that
... the time between [supernova] explosions is 100 years or more.” Michael S. Turner, “Yes, Things Really Are Going Faster,” Science, Vol. 299, 31 January 2003, p. 663.

b. Keith Davies, “Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy,” Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 1994), pp. 175–184.

“Where have all the remnants gone?” Astronomy Survey Committee of the National Research Council, Challenges to Astronomy and Astrophysics (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1983), p. 166.

Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old universe. Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without billions of years their theory is dead. Yet, hiding the “origins question” behind a vast veil of time makes the unsolvable problems of evolution difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine. Our media and textbooks have implied for over a century that these almost unimaginable ages are correct. Rarely do people examine the shaky assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence. Therefore, most people today almost instinctively believe that the Earth and universe are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at least initially, when they see the evidence.

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Connected Galaxies

Galaxies frequently appear connected or aligned with other galaxies or quasars that have vastly different redshifts. This happens too often for all examples to be coincidences (a). If redshifts imply velocities (which is most likely), these galaxies and quasars haven’t been moving apart for very long. If redshifts do not always imply velocities, many astronomical conclusions are in error.

a. Arp, Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies.

Fred Hoyle and Jayant V. Narlikar, “On the Nature of Mass,” Nature, Vol. 233, 3 September 1971, pp. 41–44.

William Kaufmann III, “The Most Feared Astronomer on Earth,” Science Digest, July 1981, pp. 76–81, 117.

Geoffrey Burbidge, “Redshift Rift,” Science 81, December 1981, p. 18.

Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old universe. Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without billions of years their theory is dead. Yet, hiding the “origins question” behind a vast veil of time makes the unsolvable problems of evolution difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine. Our media and textbooks have implied for over a century that these almost unimaginable ages are correct. Rarely do people examine the shaky assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence. Therefore, most people today almost instinctively believe that the Earth and universe are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at least initially, when they see the evidence.

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Unstable Galaxies

Computer simulations of the motions of spiral galaxies show them to be highly unstable; they should completely change their shape in only a small fraction of the universe’s assumed evolutionary age (a). The simplest explanation for so many spiral galaxies, including our Milky Way Galaxy, is that they and the universe are much younger than has been assumed.

a. David Fleischer, “The Galaxy Maker,” Science Digest, October 1981, Vol. 89, pp. 12, 116.

Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old universe. Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without billions of years their theory is dead. Yet, hiding the “origins question” behind a vast veil of time makes the unsolvable problems of evolution difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine. Our media and textbooks have implied for over a century that these almost unimaginable ages are correct. Rarely do people examine the shaky assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence. Therefore, most people today almost instinctively believe that the Earth and universe are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at least initially, when they see the evidence.

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[megadebt]

Where is the evidence supporting your assertions?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I definitely will not be reproducing for you the entirety of ANY and ALL modern academic books on the subject, but what I listed above for you is precisely where we now stand in our understanding...Take out and read through ANY and ALL book(s) on the subject.

WE KNOW exactly how LOVE works in the human brain, and we know that it takes a human brain to produce the phenomena...WE KNOW that the phenomena is guided entirely by chemicals (i.e. drugs) and we know precisely which chemicals are created by which areas of the brain, and where those chemicals then bind to produce which biochemical illusions of the love chain...

WE KNOW that LOVE IS AN ENTIRELY MATERIAL PHENOMENA....At minimum, you need the hardware to then carry the software...But, how can your God have any hardware when he's a floater? Your personally incoherent idea of what a God may be does not even venture near the possibility of a material Diety, with arms and legs and working human brain...now, does it? So, tell me, what the F do you mean when you say that God exists? Tell us. Enough of this regurgitated cut and paste pseudo-science already.

[Pahu]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I definitely will not be reproducing for you the entirety of ANY and ALL modern academic books on the subject, but what I listed above for you is precisely where we now stand in our understanding...Take out and read through ANY and ALL book(s) on the subject.

WE KNOW exactly how LOVE works in the human brain, and we know that it takes a human brain to produce the phenomena...WE KNOW that the phenomena is guided entirely by chemicals (i.e. drugs) and we know precisely which chemicals are created by which areas of the brain, and where those chemicals then bind to produce which biochemical illusions of the love chain...

WE KNOW that LOVE IS AN ENTIRELY MATERIAL PHENOMENA....At minimum, you need the hardware to then carry the software...But, how can your God have any hardware when he's a floater? Your personally incoherent idea of what a God may be does not even venture near the possibility of a material Diety, with arms and legs and working human brain...now, does it? So, tell me, what the F do you mean when you say that God exists? Tell us. Enough of this regurgitated cut and paste pseudo-science already.

Since you are unable to produce any evidence supporting your assertions, I can conclude you have none and your assertions are the product of your imagination.

On the other hand, there is scientific evidence proving the existence of the supernatural:

When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes” [From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.

Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.

[ From “Reincarnation in the Bible?” ]

[Pahu]

The Law of Biogenesis

Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes (a).

Evolutionary scientists reluctantly accept the law of biogenesis (b). However, some say that future studies may show how life could come from lifeless matter, despite the virtually impossible odds. Others say that their theory of evolution doesn’t begin until the first life somehow arose. Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred. All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific observations, life comes only from life.

a. And yet, leading evolutionists are forced to accept some form of spontaneous generation. For example, a former Harvard University professor and Nobel Prize winner in physiology and medicine acknowledged the dilemma.

“The reasonable view [during the two centuries before Louis Pasteur] was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position.” George Wald, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, Vol. 190, August 1954, p. 46.

Wald rejects creation, despite the impossible odds of spontaneous generation.

“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” Ibid.

Later, Wald appeals to huge amounts of time to accomplish what seemed to be the impossibility of spontaneous generation.

“Time is in fact the hero of the plot. ... Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.” Ibid., p. 48.

What Wald did not appreciate in 1954 (before, as just one example, the genetic code was discovered) was how the complexity in life is vastly greater than anyone at that time could have imagined. [See pages 13-21]
So, today, the impossibility of spontaneous generation is even more firmly established, regardless of the time available. But unfortunately, several generations of professors and textbooks with Wald’s perspective have so impacted our universities that it is difficult for evolutionists to change direction.

Evolutionists also do not recognize:

that with increasing time (their “miracle maker”) comes increasing degradation of the fragile environment on which life depends, and

that creationists have much better explanations (such as the flood) for the scientific observations that evolutionists thought showed increasing time.

Readers will later see this.

b. “The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation.’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine [the law of biogenesis] that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion. But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry.” J. W. N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (New York: The Viking Press, Inc., 1933), p. 94.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Acquired Characteristics

Acquired characteristics—characteristics gained after birth—cannot be inherited (a). For example, large muscles acquired by a man in a weight-lifting program cannot be inherited by his child. Nor did giraffes get long necks because their ancestors stretched to reach high leaves. While almost all evolutionists agree that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited, many unconsciously slip into this false belief. On occasion, Darwin did (b).

However, stressful environments for some animals and plants cause their offspring to express various defenses. New genetic traits are not created; instead, the environment can switch on genetic machinery already present. The marvel is that optimal (c) genetic machinery already exists to handle some contingencies, not that time, the environment, or “a need” can produce the machinery (d).

Also, rates of variation within a species (microevolution, not macroevolution) increase enormously when organisms are under stress, such as starvation (e). Stressful situations would have been widespread in the centuries after a global flood.

a. The false belief that acquired characteristics can be inherited, called Lamarckism, would mean that the environment can directly and beneficially change egg and sperm cells. Only a few biologists try to justify Lamarckism. The minor acquired characteristics they cite have no real significance for any present theory of organic evolution. For example, see “Lamarck, Dr. Steel and Plagiarism,” Nature, Vol. 337, 12 January 1989, pp. 101–102.

b. “This hypothesis [which Darwin called pangenesis] maintained the idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics.” A. M. Winchester, Genetics, 5th edition (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1977), p. 24.

c. In writing about this amazing capability, Queitsch admits:

“... it is a perplexing evolutionary question how a population might move to a different local optimum without an intervening period of reduced fitness (adaptive valley).” Christine Queitsch et al., “Hsp90 as a Capacitor of Phenotypic Variation,” Nature, Vol. 417, 6 June 2002, p. 623.

d. “... genes that were switched on in the parent to generate the defensive response are also switched on in the offspring.” Erkki Haukioja, “Bite the Mother, Fight the Daughter,” Nature, Vol. 401, 2 September 1999, p. 23.

“... non-lethal exposure of an animal to carnivores, and a plant to a herbivore, not only induces a defence, but causes the attacked organisms to produce offspring that are better defended than offspring from unthreatened parents.” Anurag A. Agrawal et al., “Transgenerational Induction of Defences in Animals and Plants,” Nature, Vol. 401, 2 September 1999, p. 60.

“... hidden genetic diversity exists within species and can erupt when [environmental] conditions change.” John Travis, “Evolutionary Shocker?: Stressful Conditions May Trigger Plants and Animals to Unleash New Forms Quickly,” Science News, Vol. 161, 22 June 2002, p. 394.

“Environmental stress can reveal genetic variants, presumably because it compromises buffering systems. If selected for, these uncovered phenotypes can lead to heritable changes in plants and animals (assimilation).” Queitsch et al., p. 618.

e. Marina Chicurel, “Can Organisms Speed Their Own Evolution?” Science, Vol. 292, 8 June 2001, pp. 1824–1827.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Mendel’s Laws

Mendel’s laws of genetics and their modern-day refinements explain almost all physical variations occurring within species. Mendel discovered that genes (units of heredity) are merely reshuffled from one generation to another. Different combinations are formed, not different genes. The different combinations produce many variations within each kind of life, as in the dog family.


Figure 3: Dog Variability. When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment.

A logical consequence of Mendel’s laws is that there are limits to such variation (a). Breeding experiments (b) and common observations (c) also confirm these boundaries.

a. Monroe W. Strickberger, Genetics, 2nd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1976), p. 812.

Alfred Russel Wallace, who independently proposed the theory of organic evolution slightly before Charles Darwin, was opposed to Mendel’s laws of genetics. Wallace knew Mendel’s experiments showed that the general characteristics of an organism remained within distinct boundaries. In a letter to Dr. Archdall Reid on 28 December 1909, Wallace wrote:

“But on the general relation of Mendelism to Evolution I have come to a very definite conclusion. This is, that it has no relation whatever to the evolution of species or higher groups, but is really antagonistic to such evolution! The essential basis of evolution, involving as it does the most minute and all-pervading adaptation to the whole environment, is extreme and ever-present plasticity, as a condition of survival and adaptation. But the essence of Mendelian characters is their rigidity. They are transmitted without variation, and therefore, except by the rarest of accidents, can never become adapted to ever varying conditions.” James Marchant, Letters and Reminiscences (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1916), p. 340.

b. “Every series of breeding experiments that has ever taken place has established a finite limit to breeding possibilities.” Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (New Haven, Connecticut: Ticknor and Fields, 1982), p. 55.

“All competent biologists acknowledge the limited nature of the variation breeders can produce, although they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the evolutionary ax.” William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1984), pp. 184–185.

“A rule that all breeders recognize, is that there are fixed limits to the amount of change that can be produced.” Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), p. 96.

Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason (Ipswich, Massachusetts: Gambit, 1971), p. 36.

William J. Tinkle, Heredity (Houston: St. Thomas Press, 1967), pp. 55–56.

c. “...the distinctions of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1927), p. 322.

“Indeed, the isolation and distinctness of different types of organisms and the existence of clear discontinuities in nature have been self-evident for centuries, even to non-biologists.” Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985), p. 105.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Bounded Variations

Not only do Mendel’s laws give a theoretical explanation for why variations are limited, broad experimental verification also exists (a). For example, if evolution happened, organisms (such as bacteria) that quickly produce the most offspring should have the most variations and mutations. Natural selection would then select the more favorable changes, allowing organisms with those traits to survive, reproduce, and pass on their beneficial genes. Therefore, organisms that have allegedly evolved the most should have short reproduction cycles and many offspring. We see the opposite. In general, more complex organisms, such as humans, have fewer offspring and longer reproduction cycles (b). Again, variations within existing organisms appear to be bounded.

Organisms that occupy the most diverse environments in the greatest numbers for the longest times should also, according to macroevolution, have the greatest potential for evolving new features and species. Microbes falsify this prediction as well. Their numbers per species are astronomical, and they are dispersed throughout almost all the world’s environments. Nevertheless, the number of microbial species is relatively few (c). New features apparently don’t evolve.

a. “...the discovery of the Danish scientist W. L. Johannsen that the more or less constant somatic variations upon which Darwin and Wallace had placed their emphasis in species change cannot be selectively pushed beyond a certain point, that such variability does not contain the secret of ‘indefinite departure.’ ” Loren Eiseley, Darwin’s Century (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1958), p. 227.

b. “The awesome morphological complexity of organisms such as vertebrates that have far fewer individuals on which selection can act therefore remains somewhat puzzling (for me at least), despite the geological time scales available...” Peter R. Sheldon, “Complexity Still Running,” Nature, Vol. 350, 14 March 1991, p. 104.

c. Bland J. Finlay, “Global Dispersal of Free-Living Microbial Eukaryote Species,” Science, Vol. 296, 10 May 2002, pp. 1061–1063.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Natural Selection 1

An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from those of its “parents.” Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So, a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more “children.” In this sense, nature “selects” genetic characteristics suited to an environment—and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing. This is called natural selection (a).

a. In 1835 and again in 1837, Edward Blyth, a creationist, published an explanation of natural selection. Later, Charles Darwin adopted it as the foundation for his theory, evolution by natural selection. Darwin failed to credit Blyth for his important insight. [See evolutionist Loren C. Eiseley, Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1979), pp. 45–80.]

Darwin also largely ignored Alfred Russel Wallace, who had independently proposed the theory that is usually credited solely to Darwin. In 1855, Wallace published the theory of evolution in a brief note in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History, a note that Darwin read. Again, on 9 March 1858, Wallace explained the theory in a letter to Darwin, 20 months before Darwin finally published his more detailed theory of evolution.

Edward Blyth also showed why natural selection would limit an organism’s characteristics to only slight deviations from those of all its ancestors. Twenty-four years later, Darwin tried to refute Blyth’s explanation in a chapter in The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (24 November 1859).

Darwin felt that, with enough time, gradual changes could accumulate. Charles Lyell’s writings (1830) had persuaded Darwin that the earth was at least hundreds of thousands of years old. James Hutton’s writings (1788) had convinced Lyell that the earth was extremely old. Hutton felt that certain geological formations supported an old earth. Those geological formations are explained, not by time, but by a global flood. [See pages 106-323]

“Darwin was confronted by a genuinely unusual problem. The mechanism, natural selection, by which he hoped to prove the reality of evolution, had been written about most intelligently by a nonevolutionist [Edward Blyth]. Geology, the time world which it was necessary to attach to natural selection in order to produce [hopefully] the mechanism of organic change, had been beautifully written upon by a man [Charles Lyell] who had publicly repudiated the evolutionary position.” Eiseley, p. 76.

Charles Darwin also plagiarized in other instances. [See Jerry Bergman, “Did Darwin Plagiarize His Evolution Theory?” Technical Journal, Vol. 16, No. 3, 2002, pp. 58–63.]

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Natural Selection 2

Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it selects only among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies, variations are reduced, not increased (b).

For example, many mistakenly believe that insect or bacterial resistances evolved in response to pesticides and antibiotics. Instead,

a lost capability was reestablished, making it appear that something evolved (c), or

a mutation reduced the ability of certain pesticides or antibiotics to bind to an organism’s proteins, or

a mutation reduced the regulatory function or transport capacity of certain proteins, or

a damaging bacterial mutation or variation reduced the antibiotic’s effectiveness even more (d), or

a few resistant insects and bacteria were already present when the pesticides and antibiotics were first applied. When the vulnerable insects and bacteria were killed, resistant varieties had less competition and, therefore, proliferated (e).

b. “[Natural selection] may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation. It is not a creative force as many people have suggested.” Daniel Brooks, as quoted by Roger Lewin, “A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity,” Science, Vol. 217, 24 September 1982, p. 1240.

“The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.” Stephen Jay Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” Natural History, Vol. 86, June–July 1977, p. 28.

c. G. Z. Opadia-Kadima, “How the Slot Machine Led Biologists Astray,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 124, 1987, pp. 127–135.

d. Eric Penrose, “Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics—A Case of Un-Natural Selection,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 35, September 1998, pp. 76–83.

e. Well-preserved bodies of members of the Franklin expedition, frozen in the Canadian Arctic in 1845, contain bacteria resistant to antibiotics. Because the first antibiotics were developed in the early 1940s, these resistant bacteria could not have evolved in response to antibiotics. Contamination has been eliminated as a possibility. [See Rick McGuire, “Eerie: Human Arctic Fossils Yield Resistant Bacteria,” Medical Tribune, 29 December 1988, p. 1.]

“The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds.” Francisco J. Ayala, “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, Vol. 239, September 1978, p. 65.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Natural Selection 3

While natural selection occurred, nothing evolved and, in fact, some biological diversity was lost.

The variations Darwin observed among finches on different Galapagos islands are another example of natural selection producing micro- (not macro-) evolution. While natural selection sometimes explains the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the origin of the fittest (f). Today, some people think that because natural selection occurs, evolution must be correct. Actually, natural selection prevents major evolutionary changes (g).



f. “Darwin complained his critics did not understand him, but he did not seem to realize that almost everybody, friends, supporters and critics, agreed on one point, his natural selection cannot account for the origin of the variations, only for their possible survival. And the reasons for rejecting Darwin’s proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous.” Søren Løvtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987), pp. 274–275.

“It was a shock to the people of the 19th century when they discovered, from observations science had made, that many features of the biological world could be ascribed to the elegant principle of natural selection. It is a shock to us in the twentieth century to discover, from observations science has made, that the fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection, and therefore were designed. But we must deal with our shock as best we can and go on. The theory of undirected evolution is already dead, but the work of science continues.” Michael J. Behe, “Molecular Machines,” Cosmic Pursuit, Spring 1998, p. 35.

g. In 1980, the “Macroevolution Conference” was held in Chicago. Roger Lewin, writing for Science, described it as a “turning point in the history of evolutionary theory.” He went on to say:


“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.” Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under

Fire,” Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, p. 883.

“In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis [neo-Darwinism] in the United States, said ‘We would not have predicted stasis [the stability of species over time] from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate.’ ” Ibid., p. 884.

As stated earlier, micro + time ≠ macro.

“One could argue at this point that such ‘minor’ changes [microevolution], extrapolated over millions of years, could result in macroevolutionary change. But the observational evidence will not support this argument... [examples given] Thus, the changes observed in the laboratory are not analogous to the sort of changes needed for macroevolution. Those who argue from microevolution to macroevolution may be guilty, then, of employing a false analogy—especially when one considers that microevolution may be a force of stasis [stability], not transformation....For those who must describe the history of life as a purely natural phenomenon, the winnowing action of natural selection is truly a difficult problem to overcome. For scientists who are content to describe accurately those processes and phenomena which occur in nature (in particular, stasis), natural selection acts to prevent major evolutionary change.” Michael Thomas, “Stasis Considered,” Origins Research, Vol. 12, Fall/Winter 1989, p. 11.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[jwreck]

God you're still here?

[Pahu]

God you're still here?

Yes He is. Aren't you glad?

[Pahu]

Mutations 1

Mutations are the only known means by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution (a).

a. “Ultimately, all variation is, of course, due to mutation.” Ernst Mayr, “Evolutionary Challenges to the Mathematical Interpretation of Evolution,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, proceedings of a symposium held at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, 25–26 April, 1966 (Philadelphia: The Wistar Institute Press, 1967), p. 50.

“Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event,...” Ayala, p. 63.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Mutations 2

Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; some are meaningless; many are lethal (b).

b. “The process of mutation is the only known source of the raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution....the mutants which arise are, with rare exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in the environments which the species normally encounters.” Theodosius Dobzhansky, “On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology,” American Scientist, December 1957, p. 385.

“In molecular biology, various kinds of mutations introduce the equivalent of noise pollution of the original instructive message. Communication theory goes to extraordinary lengths to prevent noise pollution of signals of all kinds. Given this longstanding struggle against noise contamination of meaningful algorithmic messages, it seems curious that the central paradigm of biology today attributes genomic messages themselves solely to noise.” David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, p. 10.

“Accordingly, mutations are more than just sudden changes in heredity; they also affect viability, and, to the best of our knowledge, invariably affect it adversely.” C. P. Martin, “A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution,” American Scientist, January 1953, p. 102.

“Mutation does produce hereditary changes, but the mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect.” Ibid. p. 103.

“[Although mutations have produced some desirable breeds of animals and plants,] all mutations seem to be in the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organisms. I doubt if among the many thousands of known mutant types one can be found which is superior to the wild type in its normal environment, only very few can be named which are superior to the wild type in a strange environment.” Ibid. p. 100.

“If we say that it is only by chance that they [mutations] are useful, we are still speaking too leniently. In general, they are useless, detrimental, or lethal.” W. R. Thompson, “Introduction to The Origin of Species,” Everyman Library No. 811 (New York: E. P. Dutton & Sons, 1956; reprint, Sussex, England: J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., 1967), p. 10.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Mutations 3


Visible mutations are easily detectable genetic changes such as albinism, dwarfism, and hemophilia. Winchester quantifies the relative frequency of several types of mutations.

“Lethal mutations outnumber viables by about 20 to 1. Mutations that have small harmful effects, the detrimental mutations, are even more frequent than the lethal ones.” Winchester, p. 356.

John W. Klotz, Genes, Genesis, and Evolution, 2nd edition, revised (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1972), pp. 262–265.

“...I took a little trouble to find whether a single amino acid change in a hemoglobin mutation is known that doesn’t affect seriously the function of that hemoglobin. One is hard put to find such an instance.” George Wald, as quoted by Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, pp. 18–19.

However, evolutionists have taught for years that hemoglobin alpha changed through mutations into hemoglobin beta. This would require, at a minimum, 120 point mutations. In other words, the improbability Wald refers to above must be raised to the 120th power to produce just this one protein!

“Even if we didn’t have a great deal of data on this point, we could still be quite sure on theoretical grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it—just as a random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture.” James F. Crow (Professor of Genetics, University of Wisconsin), “Genetic Effects of Radiation,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 14, January 1958, pp. 19–20.

“The one systematic effect of mutation seems to be a tendency towards degeneration...” [emphasis in original] Sewall Wright, “The Statistical Consequences of Mendelian Heredity in Relation to Speciation,” The New Systematics, editor Julian Huxley (London: Oxford University Press, 1949), p. 174.

Wright then concludes that other factors must also have been involved, because he believes evolution happened.

In discussing the many mutations needed to produce a new organ, Koestler says:

“Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but to the basic principles of scientific explanation.” Arthur Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1968), p. 129.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Mutations 4

No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors (c).

c. “There is no single instance where it can be maintained that any of the mutants studied has a higher vitality than the mother species.” N. Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (Lund, Sweden: Verlag CWK Gleerup, 1953), p. 1157.

“It is, therefore, absolutely impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombinations.” [emphasis in original] Ibid., p. 1186.

“No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.” Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic Press, 1977), p. 88.

“I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these [evolutionary] changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations.” Lynn Margulis, as quoted by Charles Mann, “Lynn Margulis: Science’s Unruly Earth Mother,” Science, Vol. 252, 19 April 1991, p. 379.

“It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation. It is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations.” Richard B. Goldschmidt, “Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist,” American Scientist, Vol. 40, January 1952, p. 94.

“If life really depends on each gene being as unique as it appears to be, then it is too unique to come into being by chance mutations.” Frank B. Salisbury, “Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene,” Nature, Vol. 224, 25 October 1969, p. 342.

“Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the business of producing new structures for selection to work on? No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be visible today, occurring in organisms at various stages up to integration of a functional new system, but we don’t see them: there is no sign at all of this kind of radical novelty. Neither observation nor controlled experiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme system or organ.” Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (London: Rider & Co., 1984), pp. 67–68.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Lulu]

Nobody reads your posts Pahu, enjoy your monologue. Actually I did pause at the post with the doggie pics because they were cute. Carry on....

[Pahu]

Fruit Flies

A century of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 consecutive generations, gives absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic improvement has ever been observed in any form of life, despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates (a).

a. “Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [the fruit fly] usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact, lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown.” Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1955), p. 105.

“A review of known facts about their [mutated fruit flies’] ability to survive has led to no other conclusion than that they are always constitutionally weaker than their parent form or species, and in a population with free competition they are eliminated. Therefore they are never found in nature (e.g., not a single one of the several hundreds of Drosophila mutations), and therefore they are able to appear only in the favourable environment of the experimental field or laboratory...” Nilsson, p. 1186.

“In the best-known organisms, like Drosophila, innumerable mutants are known. If we were able to combine a thousand or more of such mutants in a single individual, this still would have no resemblance whatsoever to any type known as a [new] species in nature.” Goldschmidt, p. 94.

“It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world—flies which produce a new generation every eleven days—they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme.” Gordon Rattray Taylor (former Chief Science Advisor, BBC Television), The Great Evolution Mystery (New York: Harper & Row, 1983), p. 48.

“Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised.” Hitching, p. 61.

“The fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times.” Grassé, p. 130.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]